Mobile Surveillance in Ontario: A Licensed PI's Guide

Mobile surveillance is a licensed investigative technique in which a trained PI follows a subject through public and semi-public spaces, documenting activity, movement, and physical condition through direct observation and contemporaneous recording. Under Ontario’s Private Security and Investigative Services Act, 2005, conducting this work for remuneration requires a valid individual licence.

This guide explains what mobile surveillance legally includes, how it differs from static surveillance, how a licensed investigation unfolds in Ontario, and what standards determine whether the footage is useful in civil proceedings.

What is mobile surveillance?

Mobile surveillance is the field technique in which a licensed investigator follows a subject across public and semi-public spaces — on foot, by vehicle, or a combination — using direct observation and contemporaneous audiovisual recording. The goal is to document the subject’s activities, movements, and physical condition as they appear in their real-world environment. The Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada’s 2009 Guidance on Covert Video Surveillance in the Private Sector provides the controlling framework for when and how this kind of covert surveillance is lawful under PIPEDA.

Mobile surveillance is distinguishable from static surveillance by its operational goal. Rather than documenting what occurs at a fixed address, the mobile investigator follows a subject through their daily environment — from home, to medical appointments, to recreational activity — capturing footage that reflects real-world functional capacity. The technique is particularly suited to insurance-fraud defence, custody disputes, and workers’ compensation cases, where a subject’s activity level away from a monitored location is the central fact in issue.

What law governs mobile surveillance by a private investigator in Ontario?

Three layers of law govern a licensed PI conducting mobile surveillance in Ontario.

The first layer is provincial licensing. PSISA 2005, s. 6 requires the investigator to hold a valid individual licence issued by the Ministry of the Solicitor General. Operating without that licence is an offence: under s. 45(1), individuals face a fine of up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year. Corporations face up to $250,000.

The second layer is professional conduct. Ontario Regulation 363/07 (Code of Conduct) requires the licensee to comply with all federal, provincial, and municipal laws while on assignment. For mobile surveillance, that obligation includes the Highway Traffic Act and applicable municipal bylaws. The Code also requires that all information collected be treated as confidential.

The third layer is federal criminal law. Criminal Code, s. 184(1) prohibits intercepting a private communication by any electro-magnetic, acoustic, mechanical, or other device without consent. Video surveillance of conduct in a public or semi-public space — where the subject has no reasonable expectation of privacy — does not constitute interception of a private communication under that section.

The OPC’s 2009 Guidance adds a fourth, privacy-law dimension. The Guidance establishes that covert surveillance is permissible under PIPEDA only when four conditions are all met: there is a demonstrable evidentiary need rather than mere suspicion; the collection serves a purpose a reasonable person would consider appropriate; the privacy loss is proportionate to the benefit; and no less invasive alternative is available. The OPC describes covert video surveillance as “extremely privacy-invasive” and limits lawful use to “the most limited cases.”

Under Criminal Code, s. 264(1), a person commits criminal harassment if they repeatedly follow another person knowing — or being reckless as to whether — that conduct causes the target to reasonably fear for their safety. A licensed PI conducting mobile surveillance does not commit s. 264 criminal harassment because the PI holds lawful authority under a client retainer and the purpose is documentation, not intimidation. That said, a surveillance assignment structured in a way that knowingly caused the subject to fear for their safety could attract s. 264 exposure regardless of the PI’s licence. This is a practitioner inference grounded in the statute’s structure, not a judicial holding.

What mobile surveillance includes — and what it does not

Mobile surveillance by a licensed Ontario PI lawfully includes:

• Continuous visual observation of the subject in any publicly accessible space, including streets, parking lots, retail areas, and public parks
• Contemporaneous video and photographic recording of activity visible from public vantage points
• Following the subject’s vehicle on public roads in compliance with the Highway Traffic Act
• Documentation of physical capability, activities, and companions the subject does not conceal from public view

Mobile surveillance does not include:

• Intercepting audio communications, which is prohibited under Criminal Code, s. 184(1) without consent or judicial authorization
• Installing a GPS tracker on a vehicle the PI does not own, which can constitute criminal mischief under Criminal Code, s. 430
• Entering private property to continue observation

The Supreme Court of Canada held in R. v. Jarvis, 2019 SCC 10 that whether a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy against observation is assessed contextually. Courts consider the location, the observational method and its permanence, any applicable policies, and the relationship between the parties. Jarvis arose in a Criminal Code s. 162 voyeurism context in a school setting; it is the leading SCC statement on the contextual reasonable-expectation-of-privacy test that courts apply broadly to filming and observation. A licensed PI observing a subject’s voluntary activity in a public space does not engage a s. 162 violation because the subject lacks a contextual reasonable expectation of privacy in those circumstances. Filming in a location where the subject does have a reasonable expectation of privacy — even if physically accessible — crosses the lawful boundary.

Mobile surveillance versus static surveillance: when each approach fits

Static surveillance positions a fixed camera or a stationary observer at a known address. It is appropriate when the relevant activity predictably occurs at a single location: a property, a business entrance, or a residence.

Mobile surveillance is the indicated approach when the subject’s relevant conduct occurs away from any predictable fixed point. It is also the right choice when the subject is suspected of concealing true physical capability by staying indoors when at home, or when retaining counsel needs footage documenting activity across multiple environments to counter a narrow injury claim.

Insurance defence counsel in Ontario commission mobile surveillance specifically to capture a subject at grocery stores, recreational venues, or appointments — locations that static surveillance of the residence would never reach. Insurance crime costs Canada an estimated $3–5 billion annually, with fraud adding over $1 billion to premiums alone. Mobile surveillance assignments in Ontario are disproportionately driven by injury-claim defence in auto and disability files. For the full breakdown of Canadian insurance fraud scale and enforcement trends, see Insurance Fraud Statistics Canada.

The OPC’s purpose-proportionality and least-invasive-alternative requirements provide the governing framework for choosing between the two methods. An investigator who could satisfy the retaining party’s evidentiary need with static surveillance should not default to mobile surveillance simply because it produces more footage.

How a mobile surveillance investigation typically unfolds in Ontario

A licensed Ontario PI mobile surveillance investigation follows a structured sequence:

1. Intake and instruction: The retaining party (insurer, defence counsel, or private client) provides a file brief with the subject’s known schedule, vehicle, and home address. The PI confirms the scope of the mandate matches PSISA-licensed investigative services and documents the client’s demonstrable evidentiary need as required by the OPC’s four-condition framework.

2. Pre-surveillance planning: The investigator reviews publicly available information, maps likely routes and gathering points, and selects a deployment posture that complies with the Highway Traffic Act and avoids trespass. Planning also includes confirming that the surveillance purpose passes the proportionality test.

3. Deployment: The investigator conducts mobile observation from public vantage points, recording contemporaneously on calibrated equipment that time-stamps each clip. All filming is from lawfully accessible positions; the investigator does not intercept audio communications or enter private property.

4. Evidence handling: Raw footage is preserved in its original format. Editing or selection for a report is documented so the chain of custody is clear if the footage reaches litigation. This preserves the authenticity standard under Canada Evidence Act, s. 31.1.

5. Reporting: A written report with timestamped footage clips is delivered to the retaining party. All information is treated as confidential under the O. Reg. 363/07 Code of Conduct. Reports are channelled through retaining counsel, not distributed to third parties outside the legal proceeding.

When mobile surveillance produces court-ready evidence

Surveillance footage is not automatically admissible — it must meet specific evidentiary standards. The criteria for court-ready evidence include:

• Disclosure before trial. In Iannarella v. Corbett, 2015 ONCA 110, the Ontario Court of Appeal held in a civil motor vehicle accident personal-injury case that defendants who commission PI surveillance must disclose all surveillance conducted on the plaintiff in Schedule B of the Affidavit of Documents — whether or not they intend to use it, and regardless of any privilege claim. Justice Lauwers grounded that disclosure obligation in the interests of fairness and the litigation objectives of efficiency and settlement. The Court characterized the use of undisclosed surveillance to cross-examine the plaintiff at trial as an impermissible “trial by ambush.”
• Impeachment versus substantive use. The Court in Iannarella further held that footage admitted at trial to impeach the plaintiff’s credibility cannot subsequently be used as substantive evidence of the plaintiff’s physical condition. These are separately governed, and trial judges must police that boundary. The Iannarella principles arose in civil personal-injury litigation; family and criminal courts apply their own procedural rules.
• Authenticity under the Canada Evidence Act. Under Canada Evidence Act, s. 31.1, any party seeking to admit an electronic document bears the burden of proving authenticity “by evidence capable of supporting a finding that the electronic document is that which it is purported to be.” Section 31.2 further requires proof of the integrity of the electronic document system in which the footage was recorded or stored. In practice, this means PI surveillance footage is most useful in court when accompanied by metadata records, an unbroken chain of custody, and a sworn affidavit attesting that the footage has not been altered.
• Disclosure channelled through counsel. Under Criminal Code, s. 193, disclosing the content of a lawfully obtained private communication without consent is an offence unless the disclosure is made as evidence in legal proceedings. For surveillance reports delivered to retaining counsel for use in litigation, the s. 193 exception for evidence in legal proceedings is the operative authority. This is why surveillance reports should be channelled through retaining counsel, not distributed to third parties outside the proceeding.

What this means if you are considering mobile surveillance

Canada has no single surveillance statute. Mobile PI surveillance in Ontario sits at the intersection of three overlapping legal layers: the federal Criminal Code (the floor), PIPEDA (the privacy framework), and PSISA 2005 (the licensing requirement). Ontario is one of the provinces in which PIPEDA governs private-sector surveillance; it has no substantially similar provincial privacy statute that displaces PIPEDA. For a province-by-province breakdown of how these layers interact and what each permits a licensed PI to do, see Surveillance Laws by Province in Canada.

As licensed PSISA investigators operating across Ontario, our investigators structure every mobile surveillance assignment around three client-protective standards. First, we document the legal basis for the surveillance at intake — confirming the client has a demonstrable evidentiary need, not mere suspicion, as required by the OPC’s four-condition framework. Second, we preserve all footage in original, unedited format with timestamped metadata so the chain of custody withstands Canada Evidence Act, s. 31.1 scrutiny. Third, we deliver our report to retaining counsel, not directly to third parties, so the Criminal Code s. 193 evidentiary-proceedings exception applies from the outset.

At Discreet Investigations, our investigators hold individual PSISA licences and carry agency-licence coverage for every mobile surveillance assignment in Ontario. Before any deployment, we confirm that the retaining party’s mandate meets the OPC’s demonstrable-need threshold — because footage gathered without that foundation is vulnerable to exclusion and exposes both client and PI to regulatory complaint. Evidence that is produced right is evidence that reaches court.

To discuss whether a mobile surveillance investigation fits your situation, call +1 (888) 680-0036 or visit our surveillance services page. You can also read more about our investigative approach on the James Glanville profile.

Licensed · Insured · Bonded.